Per Dr. E.S. DA SILVA, J. :---The petitioner challenges in this writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the appointments of respondents 4 to 6 as lecturers made by the respondent No. 1 to the Goa College of Engineering in violation of the Recruitment Rules and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is, therefore, seeking not only a declaration that these appointments are illegal but also a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside and quash the said appointments. A further relief is prayed in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to send a requisition to the Goa Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission'), respondent No. 3, to advertise the posts to be filled on regular basis. By way of interim relief pending the disposal of the writ petition a further prayer was advanced to restrain the respondents 1 and 2 in giving the benefits of regular appointments to the respondents 4 to 6. 2. It is the petitioner's case that he is a holder Post-Graduate Degree in Civil Engineering with distinction. In or around September 1993 there were existing vacancies of ad-hoc lecturers in Civil Engineering in the Goa College of Engineering and according to the Recruitment Rules applicable at the material time the minimum essential qualification for the post was Post-Graduate Degree in Engineering. However, the advertisement indicated graduate qualification in Engineering only. The petitioner applied for the post, attended the interview and was informed that the vacancy was to be filled on ad-hoc basis. However, pursuant to a Notification published in the Government Gazette on 22nd September, 1994 the petitioner came to know that the appointments were made on regular basis, that too, in contravention of 1987 Recruitment Rules and without consultation with the commission, that is, respondent No. 3. It was further the case of the petitioner that on account of such arbitrary selection the petitioner's right to contest, in the open market or with open market candidates was defeated inasmuch as the respondents in order to favour the ad-hoc selectees avoided re-advertisement of regular posts through the commission. Besides the appointments of respondents 4 to 6 were done with effect from 15th December, 1993. Besides the appointments of respondents 4 to 6 were done with effect from 15th December, 1993. The petitioner states that respondents are ineligible under the 1987 Recruitment Rules and their appointments are also irregular as the same were done without consultation with respondent No. 3 as also by an incompetent Selection Committee. It was also stated that respondent No. 2 is the Principal of the Goa College of Engineering and he has participated as member of the Selection Committee particularly when his son, respondent No. 4, was one of the candidates competing for the post of Lecturer in Civil Engineering. Sometime in September, 1993 there appeared a public advertisement for various posts in teaching faculty in Goa College of Engineering wherein 5 posts of lecturers, being 3 in general category and 2 reserved for scheduled caste were advertised. However, this advertisement was silent as to whether the posts were regular, temporary or ad-hoc. When the petitioner applied for the post he was keen to know the nature of the post and during the interview he was informed by the respondent No. 2 that the vacancies were to be filled purely on ad-hoc basis. It was further stated that among others who attended the interview on 3-11-1993 the petitioner was a post-graduate in Civil Engineering with distinction, thus better qualified than respondent Nos. 4 to 6 who were arbitrarily selected as lecturers on regular basis. It was further stated that under the Recruitment Rules 1987 the Departmental Selection Committee was constituted by (1) Chief Secretary or his Nominee as a Chairman, (2) one Nominee of Vice Chancellor, (3) one expert to be nominated by University, (4) the Secretary of Education, (5) Principal of the college and (6) The Head of the Department of the College- all as members. Accordingly such Committee was constituted vide the Notification dated 21st June, 1991 published on 10th October, 1991. However, surprisingly the Departmental Selection Committee was reconstituted subsequent to the advertisement of September, 1993 vide Notification published in the Official Gazette dated 21st October, 1993 and while reconstituting the Secretary of Education was placed in lieu of the Chief Secretary as Chairman while the expert nominated by the University was deleted and its place was given to the Director of Education/Technical Education. It was also pleaded that subsequent to the advertisement to fill up the vacancies of lecturer in Civil Engineering a series of circumstances indicated that the respondents 1 and 2 have indulged in some sort of manipulation so as to ensure the filling up of the posts by the respondents 4 to 6. These circumstances are (1) The advertisement was published on 2nd September, 1993 without specifying the nature of appointment, (2) the last date to submit applications was 30th September, 1993, (3) the Cabinet decision regarding the delinking the selection to the Commission was taken by the Government on 17th October, 1993, (4) The reconstitution of the DSC/DPC was done on 18th October, 1993 wherein the expert member of the Committee was omitted, (5) New Recruitment Rules were published on 26th October, 1993 to become effective from 27th January, 1994, (6) Interview of the candidates for filling of the posts was held on 3rd, 4th and 5th November, 1993, (7) The offer of appointment was given to respondents on 15th December, 1993, (8) the last date for joining was fixed on 12th January, 1994, (9) The Notification relinking the selection to the Commission was published on 13th January, 1994 and (10) an order for dissolution of the Departmental Selection Committee reconstituted on 18th October, 1993 was published on 2nd February, 1994 with effect from 17th January, 1994. It was stated that as far as the appointments of respondents 4 to 6, it ought to have been done strictly through the Commission, in as much as the Recruitment Rules of 1987 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and amendment to the Rules of the Commission under Article 320 could not have been said to have direct nexus as a decision of the Government relinking the particular posts to the Commission and bringing them within the purview of its consultation though taken on 17th October, 1993 was held up for publication till the respondents 4 to 6 selection was finalised and appointment order was given. According to the petitioner this prima facie exhibits the respondents 1 and 2's mala fide in giving preferential treatment to respondent No. 4 in particular, specially bearing in mind the fact of the participation of the respondent No. 2 Shri A.K. Shrivastava, the Principal of the College of Engineering, as a member of the Selection Committee in position No. 2 of the same Committee when the respondent No. 4, who is his son, was one of the candidates. It was further stated that for the purpose of selection the representative of the University, who was also one of the members of the Selection Committee, did not participate in the proceedings which by itself would invalidate the selection. It was further stated that prior to the interview conducted pursuant to the advertisement issued in September, 1993, the respondent No. 2 had invited, vide his letter dated 26th May, 1993, applications for the post of lecturer in Civil Engineering and the petitioner attended the same on 17th June, 1993 alongwith respondent No. 4. However, no appointment was made though an interview was conducted to fill up the post on ad-hoc basis. It was stated that on that occasion the petitioner was eligible in accordance with the Recruitment Rules of 1987 for the post but inspite no appointments were made at that time, probably due to the fact that respondent No. 4, Shri Amit Shrivastava, could not be selected by the Selection Committee, which was having the Chief Secretary as the Chairman. However in a subsequent reconstitution of the Selection Committee with the Secretary of Education as its Chairman and the respondent No. 2, the father of respondent No. 4, as a Director of Technical Education as one of its members, the respondent No. 4 came to be selected. It was then contended that in view of the circumstances put together the selection process appears to be preplanned so as to delete the petitioner who, at the relevant time, was eligible. 3. It was then contended that in view of the circumstances put together the selection process appears to be preplanned so as to delete the petitioner who, at the relevant time, was eligible. 3. On behalf of the respondent No. 2 Shri G.J. Prabhu Dessai the Under Secretary (Education) has filed an affidavit wherein after adverting that the affidavit was neither for the purpose of opposing the petition of the petitioner nor grant of any interim relief but only to comply with the directions of this Court stated that as far as the first contention of the petitioner that the advertisement did not disclose whether the appointment would be on regular or ad-hoc basis, since the advertisement did not state that the appointment would be on ad-hoc basis, the petitioner could make no grievance on that. So far the other objection that the regular appointment could only be made through the Commission, it was stated that in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution of India all teaching posts in Government Colleges where approval of the University is required for the appointment to such posts were exempted from consultation with the Commission vide the Notification dated 13th August, 1990, the petitioner has nowhere challenged the said Notification and as such there was no scope for him to make any grievance on this ground also. With regard to the contention that respondents 4 to 6 did not have the requisite educational qualifications of post graduate degree as required under the 1987 Recruitment Rules, which were in force at the relevant time, it was stated that in the advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Lecturers in Civil Engineering the qualifications prescribed were First Class Bachelor's Degree in appropriate branch of Engineering Technology. That requirement of First Class Bachelor's Degree was prescribed in view of the decision of the Government of India accepting the recommendations contained in the Experts' Committee's report and those made by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to implement the same with retrospective effect from 1st January, 1986. Accordingly a Notification dated 31st December, 1992 was issued by the Government of Goa deciding to implement the package scheme contained in the Government of India decision also with effect from 1st January, 1986. Accordingly a Notification dated 31st December, 1992 was issued by the Government of Goa deciding to implement the package scheme contained in the Government of India decision also with effect from 1st January, 1986. The aforesaid package scheme, inter alia, provided for revision of pay scales as also the educational qualifications and experience for the teaching posts. Regarding the educational qualifications for the post of lecturer in College of Engineering what was prescribed is only First Class Bachelor's Degree in appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology. This change in the educational qualifications was subsequently incorporated in the Recruitment Rules published in the Government Gazette dated 27th January, 1994. It was thus contended that the educational qualification of the First Class Bachelor's Degree in appropriate branch of Engineering for the post of the Lecturer as advertised was on the aforesaid premises which, otherwise, was in strict consonance with the report of the Expert Committee and the recommendations of AICTE accepted by the Government of India and implemented by the Government of Goa with effect from 1st January, 1986. On the question of the selection being vitiated because the father of the respondent No. 4 was a member of the Selection Committee it was stated that the Selection Committee which finalised the selection after assessing the comparative merits of the candidates was comprised of the Secretary of Education, Government of Goa as its Chairman with Dr. A.M. Deshmukh, Professor in Civil Engineering in the Goa College of Engineering, Joint Secretary (Personnel), Government of Goa and Shri A.K. Shrivastava (father of the respondent No. 4) in his capacity as Principal of Goa College of Engineering and Director of Technical Education. Shri Shrivastava had, however, withdrawn from the Selection Committee when his son was interviewed by the other members of the Selection Committee. In a subsequent affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 at the time of the hearing Shri G.J. Prabhu Dessai has reiterated the contents of his earlier affidavit and also denied that the petitioner was informed at the interview that the vacancies were to be filed on ad-hoc basis. Therefore, the appointments of respondents 4 to 6 pursuant to the selection made in November 1993 have been done on regular basis. It was contended that the Government has a right to constitute and/or reconstitute the Selection Committee. Therefore, the appointments of respondents 4 to 6 pursuant to the selection made in November 1993 have been done on regular basis. It was contended that the Government has a right to constitute and/or reconstitute the Selection Committee. The petitioner could not have any grievance about the reconstitution of the Selection Committee in terms of the Notification dated 21st October, 1993 inasmuch as the respondent No. 2 was also a member of the earlier Selection Committee, being the Principal of College of Engineering. It was also denied that the Notification delinking the teaching posts from the purview of consultation with the Commission though taken on 7th October, 1993 was held up for publication till the selection was finalised or appointment orders were given. It was also denied that the selection of respondents 4, 5 and 6 was vitiated by non-participation of the nominee of the Vice Chancellor as member of the Selection Committee, who did not remain present at the time of the interview. The petitioner is also not entitled to challenge the selection of respondents 4 to 6 on the ground that the Commission has not been consulted inasmuch as no right accrues to him on the ground of non-consultation. Moreover on the petitioner's own showing the selection of the respondents was done at the time when the Notification dated 13th August, 1990 was in force and according to which all the teaching posts in Government Colleges where approval of the University is required for the appointment were exempted from consultation with the Commission. 4. The respondent No. 3, Goa Public Service Commission, has also filed an affidavit wherein it was clarified that the same was being presented only to place the true and correct facts of the matter. It was stated that the said respondent was constituted on 30th May, 1988 by respondent No. 1 under Article 320 of the Constitution of India and was performing its duties laid down under the Constitution of India. The respondent No. 1 had also framed Regulations under the proviso to Article 320(3) and under Clause 4 thereof has exempted consultation in regard to any matter mentioned in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution of India in case of services and posts specified in the schedule to the Regulations. The respondent No. 1 had also framed Regulations under the proviso to Article 320(3) and under Clause 4 thereof has exempted consultation in regard to any matter mentioned in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution of India in case of services and posts specified in the schedule to the Regulations. All the teaching posts including the one which was the subject matter of the petition were within the purview of this respondent as these posts were not included in the schedule to the Regulation. It was only on 13th August, 1990 that respondent No. 1 amended the schedule to include the teaching posts in the Government Colleges where approval of the University of Goa is required for the appointment to such posts and all teaching posts in Technical Colleges where approval of the Board of Technical Education is required for the appointment to such posts were included in the exemption from consultation clause. The respondent was not intimated about this exercise either before or after the issuance of the notification but came to know of it while referring to Official Gazette wherein it was published. It was stated that the respondent had never come across the requirement of approval by the University and, therefore, an effort was made to know whether there was any statute laying down such condition vide letter dated 15th July, 1991 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The respondent by letter dated 4th December, 1991 informed the respondent No. 1 that the exercise of withdrawing the teaching posts from the purview of the Commission was improper since there was no statute of the University requiring such approval in case of Government Colleges. The only statute governing the terms and conditions of the services of teachers was the Statute 55 pertaining only to non-Government constituted Colleges and affiliated Colleges of Goa University. Further as per Notification dated 27th June, 1991 of the Education Department no approval of Board of Technical Education was required. It was submitted that there is no Board in existence known as Board of Technical Education as mentioned in the amended schedule. Further as per Notification dated 27th June, 1991 of the Education Department no approval of Board of Technical Education was required. It was submitted that there is no Board in existence known as Board of Technical Education as mentioned in the amended schedule. It was further stated that respondent No. 1 did not reply to the various representations made to the respondent Commission from 19th February, 1991 until 13th September, 1993 when the Commission made a representation to the Chief Minister bringing to his notice the anomaly in the actions of the respondent No. 1 in connection with the Notification regarding exemption from consultation. It was on this representation that respondent No. 1 finally took cognizance of the matter and in the Cabinet meeting held on 18th November, 1993 a decision was taken to revert the teaching posts to the consultation of the Commission. This was published in the local newspapers. However, even after that respondent No. 1 in contravention of the Cabinet decision and perhaps on the basis of the fact that no Notification was published to that effect continued to make appointments to the teaching posts, namely, to the Goa College of Engineering and Government Polytechnic. In furtherance of this, advertisements were issued calling upon candidates to apply for the posts in newspapers published and circulated in other parts of India but no advertisements, however, appeared in the local newspapers. As a result of this the respondent No. 1 had made selection of many candidates in the Government Colleges. This fact prompted the respondent to address another representation to the Chief Minister on 13th January, 1994 bringing out the consequences of not issuing the Notification or order based on the decision of the Cabinet dated 18th November, 1993 setting aside the Notification dated 13th August, 1990. Immediately on the same day the respondent No. 1 issued a notice dated 13th January, 1994 Eliminating Entry 11 to the Regulation. It was stated that because of the present petition revolves around this period and just when the action of the respondent No. 1 in withdrawing the teaching post from the purview of respondent No. 3 was being corrected the respondent sought to amend the 1987 Recruitment Rules pertaining to the recruitment of Goa General Service Group A Gazetted post in the Goa College of Engineering by Notification dated 27th January, 1994 without prior consultation of the respondent. In Column 13 of the said Recruitment Rules concerning circumstances in which the Commission was to be consulted in making the recruitment is marked as 'N.A.' (Not applicable). Further essential educational qualifications were reduced from First Class Master's Degree to First Class Bachelor's Degree in Engineering. It was thus submitted in the facts and circumstances of the case the Rules published in the Government Gazette could not get the sanction of law as being contrary to the Constitution. The action of the respondent No. 1 led also to representations of many ad-hoc appointees holding the post of Lecturers at the Goa College of Engineering to the effect that the new appointment order on temporary/regular basis pursuant to the interviews held in October/November should not be issued unless their appointments are regularized. The respondent has, therefore, addressed a letter to respondent No. 1 dated 2nd March, 1994 in connection with those representations requesting for detailed report in the matter. The respondent No. 1 was also requested not to issue the appointment orders to the selected candidates without consultation with the Commission. However, the Commission received a reply from the respondent No. 1 only on 21st June, 1994 informing that as it has accepted certain recommendations from A.I.C.T.E. in respect of the pay scale of the teaching staff in the technical institutions, Recruitment Rules for those posts had been amended and published. The Commission was further informed that the candidates selected in November 1993 were appointed on regular basis as recommended by duly constituted Selection Committee. This was done before the Notification dated 13th January, 1994 when the posts were brought under the purview of the Commission. The Commission was further informed that it has been also agreed that the waiting list in the panel of November 1993 would operate till it was exhausted. The consultation was, thus, felt not necessary. In was in this manner that the appointment orders issued to as many as 11 candidates on 22nd February, 1994 selected by respondent No. 1 came to light when these were published in the Official Gazette dated 22nd September, 1994. 5. The consultation was, thus, felt not necessary. In was in this manner that the appointment orders issued to as many as 11 candidates on 22nd February, 1994 selected by respondent No. 1 came to light when these were published in the Official Gazette dated 22nd September, 1994. 5. Respondent No. 4 in his affidavit has stated that pursuant to that advertisement published on 2nd September, 1993 in the newspaper 'Indian Express' inviting applications by the Principal of Goa College of Engineering for the posts of lecturers in Civil Engineering along with other posts wherein the qualifications required were mentioned, he applied for the post of Lecturer in Civil Engineering as he possessed the minimum qualifications of First Class Bachelor's Degree in Civil Engineering. The advertisement did not specify that the posts were to be filled on ad-hoc basis and hence the posts were required to be filled on regular basis. He attended the interview. His father Shri. A.K. Shrivastava, respondent No. 2, who was a member of the Selection Committee did not participate in the proceedings and he was selected for the post of Lecturer purely on the basis of merit as per the decision of the said committee who held his interview. He, therefore, denied that the appointments were made in contravention of the 1987 Rules or that the same were arbitrary. There was also no question of readvertisement of the said post through the Commission as at the time of filling of the vacancies, the teaching posts were out of the purview of the Commission. He also denied that his selection was done by an incompetent Selection Committee. He also disputed that the Recruitment Rules of 1987 were applicable for the selection of respondents 4 to 6. In this regard he referred to the Notification dated 31st December, 1992 issued by the Government of Goa prescribing qualifications for the post of Lecturer as being First Class Bachelor's Degree in appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology. It was contended that the Government had powers to constitute and reconstitute Departmental Selection Committee. He, however, denied that any exercise in this regard was done to favour him or the remaining respondents 5 and 6. 6. It was contended that the Government had powers to constitute and reconstitute Departmental Selection Committee. He, however, denied that any exercise in this regard was done to favour him or the remaining respondents 5 and 6. 6. In his turn respondent No. 5 in his affidavit has stated that being a holder of a Degree of Bachelor of Civil Engineering in First Class with distinction held in November, 1992, he was qualified for the appointment of Lecturer in Civil Engineering under the Recruitment Rules, 1994 for which he was appointed on temporary basis with effect from 20th December, 1993. Prior to that he had worked as a Visiting Lecturer and delivered lectures to students of Goa Engineering College from 13th September, 1993 to 29th October, 1993 as Visiting Faculty. In addition to teaching experience he had worked also in a private firm as design engineer. His selection by the Departmental Selection Committee could not be considered illegal on account of participation of respondent No. 2 Shri A.K. Shrivastava in the Selection Committee. Even assuming that the selection of respondent No. 4 was liable to be set aside on that count, he states that he was not benefitted by the participation of Shri Shrivastava in the selection process as he had no connection with him. In a further affidavit at the time of the hearing he has reiterated that he was fully qualified for the post of Lecturer as per the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement through which he was appointed after being called for interview conducted by the competent departmental Selection Committee. He further stated that qualifications have been prescribed by the National Experts Committee appointed by the Central Government to make recommendations in respect of pay scales, qualifications and condition of service of teaching staff of the technical institutions. The report of the Committee was placed before the All India Council for Technical Education and the Government of India accepted this recommendation which was subsequently adopted by the State. As such, according to him, the Recruitment Rules 1987 were deemed to be superceded, amended and having no effect in terms of the aforesaid directions of the Government of India and the Notification of the Government of Goa accepting those directions. As such, according to him, the Recruitment Rules 1987 were deemed to be superceded, amended and having no effect in terms of the aforesaid directions of the Government of India and the Notification of the Government of Goa accepting those directions. Further it was also contended that the petitioner could not rely on the provisions of the Recruitment Rules 1987 after the implementation of the scheme by Government of India and the Notification issued by the Government of Goa and/or after publication of new Recruitment Rules of 1994. It was submitted that the petitioner has not applied for appointment to the post of Lecturer in terms of Recruitment Rules 1987. On the matter of Departmental Selection Committee which selected him and others for the post of lecturers and which was including the Principal of Goa College of Engineering, it was urged that he has no personal relationship with him nor has he benefitted by the participation of Shri. A.K. Shrivastave or other members in the Selection Committee. It was also contended that many other candidates who held qualifications like him have been selected by the departmental Promotion Committee and appointed in different departments in Goa College of Engineering and other educational institutions owned by the Government of Goa therefore if the reliefs sought for by the petitioner are granted it would result in total chaos in all these institutions and educational field in general. 7. On behalf of respondent No. 6 an affidavit was also filed by him wherein he has strongly objected to the false statements made by the petitioner in his petition to the effect that the respondent No. 6 was a fresh engineering graduate and, therefore, ineligible to be appointed to the post of Lecturer under the Recruitment Rules of 1987. It was submitted that this was a patently false statement inasmuch as he had obtained his degree of Bachelor of Engineering in the First Class with honours in June 1990 and further that he had obtained the post-graduate Degree of Master of Engineering (ME) in the First Class with distinction in July 1993. The petitioner was very much aware that he had obtained the degree of Master of Engineering in the First Class with distinction but he conscientiously suppressed the fact in order to try to create the impression that the respondent No. 6 is a fresh graduate and not fulfilling the prescribed qualifications. The petitioner was very much aware that he had obtained the degree of Master of Engineering in the First Class with distinction but he conscientiously suppressed the fact in order to try to create the impression that the respondent No. 6 is a fresh graduate and not fulfilling the prescribed qualifications. For this reason itself the petition is liable to be dismissed as against him. He, therefore, denied that he was ineligible to be considered in terms of the Recruitment Rules 1987 and said that he was qualified either under those Rules as well as under the new Rules of 1994. He, however, disputed that Recruitment Rules of 1987 were applicable in this case but even assuming that the Rules were applicable still he was fulfilling the essential qualifications prescribed in the said Recruitment Rules. He denied that his interview was conducted for ad-hoc post and stated that the advertisement did not refer to any ad-hoc post. It was further submitted that the petitioner applied for the post, attended interview and took his chance. As such it could not be said that the petitioner had been denied any opportunity to compete alongwith open market candidates. Thus there was no violation of any fundamental right of the petitioner for being considered for employment. He also denied that the reconstituted Departmental Selection Committee did not have a subject expert as a member of the Committee. Besides Shri Deshmukh was very much present as subject expert in the Committee. He further contended that in terms of proviso to sub-clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution of India it was permissible for the Government to delink teaching posts from the purview of the Commission. The notification concerning such delinking was passed as early as on 13th August, 1990, almost three years prior to the impugned selection. Thus it is inconceivable that such action was taken either to favour respondents 4 to 6 or any other candidates who appeared for the interview. Therefore, there was no mala fide in the matter. In so far as the participation of Shri. A.K. Shrivastava was concerned he stated that he was informed that Shri Shrivastava was not present at the time of the interview of respondent No. 4. Therefore, there was no mala fide in the matter. In so far as the participation of Shri. A.K. Shrivastava was concerned he stated that he was informed that Shri Shrivastava was not present at the time of the interview of respondent No. 4. At any rate that could not be a ground for setting aside his selection as the petitioner himself has not alleged any bias insofar as respondent No. 6 is concerned. Further, petitioner was very much aware that Shri Shrivastava was a member of the Committee and that respondent No. 4 was one of the candidates for the post. Inspite of this, petitioner appeared for the interview and only after being declared unsuccessful that he chose to file this petition. As such this conduct of the petitioner speaks waiver and acquiescence. Further he contended that the nominee of the Vice-Chancellor was present in the Selection Committee and as such its composition could not be challenged. With regard to the interview held in June, 1993 he said that he was informed that there was no financial concurrence for filling up the post of Lecturers and, therefore, the results were not declared. He also denied that his appointment was irregular as in terms of Notification dated no consultation was necessary. At any rate the failure to consult does not create any right to the petitioner and further the same cannot be a ground for declaring the selection invalid. 8. Shri Bhise, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has basically raised three grounds to challenge the appointments of the respondents 4 to 6. It was firstly submitted by the learned Counsel that the advertisement published by respondent No. 2 in the newspaper 'Indian Express', dated 2nd September, 1993, to fill the vacancies of Lecturers in Civil Engineering in the Goa College of Engineering did not disclose whether the appointments would be on regular or ad-hoc basis. It was also contended that the candidates selected and appointed on the strength of such advertisement did not have the required educational qualifications as provided in the Recruitment Rules 1987 (hereinafter called the 1987 Rules) which, according to the petitioner, were in force at the relevant time. It was also contended that the candidates selected and appointed on the strength of such advertisement did not have the required educational qualifications as provided in the Recruitment Rules 1987 (hereinafter called the 1987 Rules) which, according to the petitioner, were in force at the relevant time. The third contention is that the whole process of selection of the candidates was vitiated due to the fact that not only the Selection Committee which held the interview of the candidates was incompetent but also on account of the participation in the Selection Committee of the respondent No. 2, the father of the respondent No. 4, who, at the material time, was the Principal of the Goa College of Engineering, as a member of the Committee which finalised the selection. In this regard it was submitted that post-graduate Degree in Engineering was one of the essential qualifications for the post of Lecturer in Civil Engineering as per the 1987 Rules when the respondents 4 to 6 were selected. Further since the regular posts of lecturers in the College were required to be filed up only after prior consultation with the respondent No. 3 the Goa Public Service Commission (hereinafter called the Commission), it was contended that the selection of the candidates and their appointments on regular basis after bypassing the requisite of consultation with the Commission was illegal. It was urged that appointments without consultation with the Commission could be only done on ad-hoc basis and the Commission was required to advertise regular vacancies so that the petitioner and others could have had an opportunity to apply and compete among other candidates in the open market. Further the appointment of the respondent No. 4 was done with effect from 18th January, 1994 pursuant to the offer of appointment dated 15th December, 1993 while the appointment of respondent No. 5 was done with effect from 20th December, 1993 and of respondent No. 6 right from 23rd December, 1993. Further the appointment of the respondent No. 4 was done with effect from 18th January, 1994 pursuant to the offer of appointment dated 15th December, 1993 while the appointment of respondent No. 5 was done with effect from 20th December, 1993 and of respondent No. 6 right from 23rd December, 1993. It was contended that considering the dates on which these respondents were appointed and the fact that the 1987 Rules were providing the qualification of First Class Post-Graduate Degree in Engineering or First Class Bachelor's Degree followed by Master's Degree in Engineering besides one year of teaching experience as its essential qualifications, the selection of the respondents 4 to 6 was ex facie against the same Rules so much so the said respondents were only fresh Engineering graduates. It was further submitted that when the vacancies were available, only the 1987 Rules were holding the field because these Rules were amended and came into force only with effect from 27th January, 1994. Learned Counsel has also taken strong objection on the composition of the Selection Committee and the fact that immediately prior to the interview of the respondents 4 to 6 the Committee was reconstituted so as to replace the Chief Secretary, who was the Chairman of the previous Committee, by the Secretary of Education as its Chairman. Besides in the new Committee one expert to be nominated by the University as one of its members was omitted and the selection was done without participation of any expert in the matter. Further inspite of respondent No. 4, who was one of the candidates, being the son of respondent No. 2, the Principal of the College, said respondent No. 2 acted as a member of the Selection Committee although he claims that at the time of the selection of his son, the respondent No. 4, he remained out. The learned Counsel strongly deprecated this fact as highly improper and urged that on this count alone the selection of all the candidates was deemed to be found vitiated as arbitrary and illegal. It was further submitted that even the participation of Dr. Deshmukh in the process of selection and interview could not be explained or justified because it cannot be understood in what capacity Dr. Deshmukh intervened as a member of the Committee. It was further submitted that even the participation of Dr. Deshmukh in the process of selection and interview could not be explained or justified because it cannot be understood in what capacity Dr. Deshmukh intervened as a member of the Committee. Besides no nominee of the Vice-Chancellor has participated in the proceedings inspite of the new Committee providing for such nominee as a member of the Committee. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that the entire exercise of selection was made by an irregular and incompetent Committee thus rendering the selection null and void. Reliance was placed in this regard on the case of (A.K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India and others)1, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 150. This was a case in which one Chief Conservator of Forests of the State, who was one of the persons to be considered for selection to the Post of Officer to the Indian Forest Service, was by inherence also a member of the Selection Board. The Court observed that although ordinarily the Chief Conservator of Forests of the State should be held as the most appropriate person to be in the Selection Board as he must be expected to know his officers thoroughly, their weaknesses as well as their strength, his opinion as regards their suitability for selection to the All India Service was entitled to great weight. But then under the circumstances it was improper to have included him as a member of the Selection Board. He was one of the persons to be considered for selection. It was against all canons of justice to make a man judge in his own cause. It was true that he did not participate in the deliberations of the Committee when his name was considered. But then the very fact that he was a member of the Selection Board must have had its own impact on the decision of the Selection Board. He had admittedly participated in the deliberations of the Selection Board when the claims of his rivals was considered. He was also party to the preparation of the list of selected candidates in order of preference. At every stage of his participation in the deliberations of the Selection Board there was a conflict between his interests and duty. It was thus difficult to believe that he could have been impartial. The question was not whether he was biased. He was also party to the preparation of the list of selected candidates in order of preference. At every stage of his participation in the deliberations of the Selection Board there was a conflict between his interests and duty. It was thus difficult to believe that he could have been impartial. The question was not whether he was biased. The question was whether there was reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased. 9. With regard to the first submission of learned Counsel we are of the view that there appears to be no substance in the grievance sought to be advanced by the petitioner that the advertisement had not made a special mention as to whether the posts sought to be filled were to be filled on regular or ad-hoc basis. Since the advertisement has not referred that the filling of the posts was to be done on ad-hoc basis in our judgment it was not open to the petitioner to believe that these posts were to be filled on ad-hoc basis. The presumption is that when there is a vacancy and the post is sought to be filled it is to be deemed that the filling of the post is to be done on regular basis. We are, therefore, in agreement with the learned Additional Government Advocate as well as with learned Counsel for respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 when they contend that once the advertisement did not disclose that the posts were to be filled on ad-hoc basis the petitioner could not expect that the appointments should not have been done on regular basis. 10. 10. So far the required qualifications of the respondents 4 to 6 to be appointed as Lecturers in the Goa College of Engineering are concerned and whether the qualifications so required were or not the ones which have been prescribed under the 1987 Rules it is difficult to appreciate the stand taken by the respondents, particularly by the respondent No. 1, that consequent upon the decision of the Government of India accepting the recommendations contained in the Experts Committee Report to implement the same with retrospective effect from 1st January, 1986 followed by the Notification issued by the Government of Goa dated 31st December, 1992 deciding to also implement the same from 1st January, 1986 the educational qualifications suggested by these recommendations were considered for publishing the advertisement dated 2nd September, 1993 although dehors the 1987 Rules. Admittedly under the 1987 Rules the minimum essential qualifications required for filling of the post of Lecturer was Post graduate Degree in Engineering or Bachelor's Degree in Engineering followed by the Master's Degree in Engineering. However the recommendations contained in the Experts Committee report has proposed that the qualifications for the post of lecturer should be only First Class Bachelor's Degree in appropriate branch of Technical Engineering. There is no dispute that at the relevant time the 1987 Rules were very much in force and only in 1994 (27-1-1994) those rules were replaced by fresh Recruitment Rules published in the Government Gazette dated 27th January, 1994. It is nobody's case and much less of the respondent No. 1 that these recommendations accepted by the Government of India and subsequently by the Government of Goa by Notification dated 31st December, 1992 had any statutory character and, therefore, these recommendations being of the nature of instructions could not obviously supersede the rules which had been notified in the Government Gazette and have legal binding in the nature of subordinate legislation. It is therefore impermissible to contend that only because the Government of Goa decided to implement the decision of the Government of India on the basis of some recommendations of an Experts Committee Report the 1987 rules became inoperative and could be ignored or superseded. There is no sanctity in law to such a startling assertion advanced on behalf of the Government of Goa. There is no sanctity in law to such a startling assertion advanced on behalf of the Government of Goa. The very circumstance that this change in educational qualifications was required to be given a proper legal stamp was the fact that the Government itself found it necessary to incorporate these recommendations in the fresh rules notified by the Government on 27th January, 1994. This being the position it is clear that until the 1987 rules were replaced by the Recruitment Rules 1994 (hereinafter called the 1994 Rules) the earlier Rules were holding the field and no appointments for the posts of Lecturers could have been done unless the candidates were found to be fulfilling the conditions prescribed in those Rules, namely, with regard to the minimum qualifications provided in the said Rules. We are, therefore, not impressed with the submission advanced by learned Counsel for the respondents in this regard and we hold that the recommendations of the Experts Committee till they were crystalized into Rules could not have been considered either by the Government or by any authority for the purpose of determining the minimum qualifications required for the appointment to the post of Lecturer in the Goa College of Engineering. We further hold that such recommendations accepted by the Central Government even after being adopted by the State Government pursuant to the Notification dated 31st December, 1992 are to be deemed at the most as executive instructions and needless to say that such executive instructions can neither change nor replace Rules which have admittedly statutory force. In the case of (J. K. Public Service Commission etc. v. Dr. Narinder Mohan and others)2, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1808 the Supreme Court observed that the existence of statutory rules is not a condition precedent to appoint an eligible and fit person to a post. The executive power is coextensive with legislative power of the State and under Article 162 of the Constitution of India the State can create civil posts and fill them up according to executive instructions consistent with Articles 14 and 16. However the Court held that once statutory rules have been made the appointment shall be only in accordance with these rules. The executive power can be exercised only to fill in the gaps. Instructions cannot and should not supplant the law but only supplement it. 11. Mr. However the Court held that once statutory rules have been made the appointment shall be only in accordance with these rules. The executive power can be exercised only to fill in the gaps. Instructions cannot and should not supplant the law but only supplement it. 11. Mr. Sonak, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6, has skillfully attempted to make out a case in favour of bringing the said recommendations to the level of statutory Rules by relying on the Entry 66 of List 1 of 7th Schedule of the Constitution. It was submitted by learned Counsel that the 1987 Rules have to be read out in the light of the recommendations of the Experts Committee and in the event this reading out would not be possible then these 1987 Rules to the extent that they were inconsistent with the instructions of the A.I.C.T.E. were to be held as ultra vires of the Constitution of India because the Central Government has accepted those recommendations by the Committee appointed under its provisions in terms of the aforesaid Entry 66 of List 1 of Schedule 7 under which the powers of co-ordination and determination of standards of education lies on the Central Government. It was also urged that Entry 25 of Concurrent List is subject to the Entry 66 of List 1 of the 7th Schedule. With respect we are unable to agree with this proposition for the simple reason that the recommendations accepted by the Government or instructions/guidelines framed thereon remain always as recommendations and instructions which might bind the Government itself but by no stretch of imagination such recommendations can be conferred the status or equated to statutory rules. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel on the case of (Osmania University Teachers Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another)3, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2034 does not appear to be attracted since the same refers to the exclusive power of the Parliament to legislate with respect to matter included in List 1 and while holding that the State has no power at all with regard to such matters the Court observed that if the State legislates on the subject falling within List 1 that will be void, inoperative and unenforceable. Admittedly ours is not a case of the State having brought legislation on matters pertaining to exclusive powers of the Parliament. Admittedly ours is not a case of the State having brought legislation on matters pertaining to exclusive powers of the Parliament. The 1987 Rules were very much in existence in Goa at the time of the filling of the posts and although the recommendations of the Central Government were accepted by the Government of Goa this does not mean that those recommendations were given the force of law. There cannot be any dispute that the Parliament has exclusive power to legislate on matters in List 1 but what was done is that inspite of the prescribed minimum essential qualifications for filling of the posts of Lecturers as provided in 1987 Rules the State Government chose to overlook those Rules and went on filling the posts of lecturers based on recommendations which had only the legal character of mere instructions. 12. Further it is to be seen that notwithstanding the 1987 Rules being very much in force the respondents also ignored the Cabinet decision taken on 18th November, 1993 whereby the teaching posts were excluded from the Exemption from Consultation Clause by the Commission, the respondent No. 3. It is true that by Notification dated 13th August, 1990 the respondent No. 1 had amended the Schedule to the Regulations under the proviso to Article 320(3) of the Constitution of India and under its Clause 4 included all the teaching posts within the purview of the Schedule of Exemption. However the record shows that on a representation made by the Commission to the Chief Minister the respondent No. 1 took cognizance of the impropriety and illegality of that exclusion and decided to revert the teaching posts to the ambit of consultation by the respondent No. 3. Inspite of that it is apparent that on the basis that no Notification was published in this regard the respondent No. 1 continued to make illegal appointments to the teaching posts without implementing the policy taken by the Cabinet thus showing scant respect for its own decisions. 13. In this regard we must say that publication in the Government Gazette of a Cabinet decision is not necessary to bind the Government to its own decisions and make it legally liable to strictly implement the same in its letter and spirit. 13. In this regard we must say that publication in the Government Gazette of a Cabinet decision is not necessary to bind the Government to its own decisions and make it legally liable to strictly implement the same in its letter and spirit. Admittedly the publication in the Government Gazette is required only to give to a Cabinet decision the necessary publicity and in order to bring it to the notice of those to whom the said decision is to be applied. As such publication of a decision being only a formal act has nothing to do with the intrinsic merits of the said decision. It does not require too much elaboration to reassert this basic and cardinal proposition of law. The decision taken by the Cabinet is indeed a decision binding on the Government which has made it under the powers conferred on the executive. In the instant case we are greatly disturbed that this decision concerns particularly the very Education Department which has processed the appointments and therefore it is inconceivable that the same department should have chosen to persistently bypass it. This being the position the respondent No. 1 was definitely bound by such decision and could not have ignored the same while making the appointments in blatant violation of its own policies. Thus it is clear that whatever appointments have been made by the respondent No. 1 contrary to the Rules and the said decision are to be deemed as bad, illegal and void. The effect of such decision would be that consultation with the Commission has become necessary in order to fill the posts of lecturers in compliance with the mandate of the Constitution, namely, of its Article 320. It was therefore not open to the respondent No. 1 to appoint, after 18th November, 1993, anyone, namely, respondents 4 to 6 as lecturers even assuming that they had been properly selected by a competent Committee, without prior and effective consultation with the respondent No. 3. 14. It was therefore not open to the respondent No. 1 to appoint, after 18th November, 1993, anyone, namely, respondents 4 to 6 as lecturers even assuming that they had been properly selected by a competent Committee, without prior and effective consultation with the respondent No. 3. 14. Another serious aspect which seems to have been grossly overlooked by the respondent No. 1 is the fact that after the consultation with the Commission was restored, consequent upon the decision of the Cabinet taken on 18th November, 1993 and Notified on 13th January, 1994, in accordance with the aforesaid constitutional provision the Recruitment Rules which were in force could not have been amended unless the Commission had been also consulted in terms of Article 320(3)(a) and (b). In this respect the Supreme Court while dealing with sections 110 and 103 of the J. K. Constitution has expressly emphasized in the case of (State of Jammu Kashmir v. A.R. Zakki and others)4, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1546 that consultation with the Commission is a requirement for the reason that it is an expert body to advise the Government on matters relating to public service and entrusted with the task of selecting suitable persons for appointments to the service of the State. Therefore the Commission is required to be consulted on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts, on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts as well as promotions and transfers and on all disciplinary matters. The Court however in relation to the judicial service held that the Commission has a limited role, viz., consultation at the stage of making of rules and when and to what extent the Commission was to be associated with the process of selection of personnel for appointment would depend on the provisions of the rules so made. 15. It is a settled position in law that rules become statutory only from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. In the case in question the new rules were published in the Government Gazette on 27th January, 1994. Admittedly the exclusion from Exemption Notification was published in the Government Gazette on 13th January, 1994. 15. It is a settled position in law that rules become statutory only from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. In the case in question the new rules were published in the Government Gazette on 27th January, 1994. Admittedly the exclusion from Exemption Notification was published in the Government Gazette on 13th January, 1994. Hence even considering the date of this publication and without prejudice to what we have held above with regard to the scope of publication it is clear that the said Rules did not conform with the consequences arising out of the said Notification which has restored the right of the Commission to be consulted on all matters relating to recruitment to civil services and for civil posts, on the principles to be followed in making appointments to such posts and in making promotions and transfers from one post to another as well as regarding suitability of candidates for appointment to the service. To be noted also that when the respondent No. 1 had just taken the decision to cancel the Exemption clause soon thereafter the prevailing 1987 Rules were sought to be changed so as to reduce the essential educational qualifications without consultation with the Commission once again in breach of the constitutional requirement. Accordingly by Notification dated 27th January, 1994 the new Rules were gazetted in place of the old ones. These rules are notable not only on account of the fact that essential qualifications were brought down from First Class Master's Degree in Engineering to First Class Bachelor's Degree in Engineering but also because consultation with the Commission while making recruitment was omitted in as much as in Column 13 the same is marked N.A. which means not applicable. 16. Lastly and with regard to bias and illegality of the constitution of the Selection Committee indeed the record shows that after the publication of the Exemption from Consultation Clause the Government reconstituted the Departmental Selection Committee by Notification dated 21st June, 1991, published in the Government Gazette dated 10th October, 1991, by making the Chief Secretary or his nominee as Chairman, its members being one nominee of the Vice-Chancellor, one expert to be nominated by the University, the Secretary of Education, the Principal of the College and the Head of the Department of the College in the subject concerned. However it is seen that barely two weeks before the interview of the candidates was held on 3rd, 4th and 5th November, this Selection Committee was reconstituted once again on 18th October, 1993 whereby the Chief Secretary as its Chairman was replaced by the Secretary (Education) who was only a member of the previous Committee and the expert member nominated by the University ceased to find any place therein. Instead the Joint Secretary (Personnel) and the Director of Technical Education were included as members while the Head of the Department of the College in the subject concerned stood also omitted. 17. We are merely indicating the nature of the changes in the composition of the Selection Committee and we must say that in fact we are finding a genuine difficulty in understanding the ultimate aim of the steps taken by the concerned department in this respect. But be that as it may, what we are really unable to appreciate is the fact that when admittedly the respondent No. 2, the father of one of the candidates to be interviewed, the respondent No. 4, and who as the Principal of the college was one of the members of the committee the composition of the Selection Committee was required to be further amended so as to omit amongst its members the expert nominated by the University and include therein besides a mere Joint Secretary (Personnel), just a bureaucrat obviously without any expertise in the matter, the Director of Technical Education who, the record shows, happened to be again, at the relevant time, the very respondent No. 2 (paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-reply of the respondent No. 1 dated 30th January, 1995) accumulating both the posts of Principal of the college and Director of Technical Education. 18. If this is not a sad reflection on the series of last moment adjustments around this unfortunate affair we are positively at loss to imagine as to what this whole exercise really means. We are therefore compelled to believe that the fact by itself not only suggests but instead strongly points out that the Selection Committee was reshaped in such a manner so as to create some sort of weightage in favour of respondent No. 4 even conceding that the respondent No. 2 did not actively take part in the interview of his own son. 19. 19. In this regard the observations of the Supreme Court in Kraipak's case A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 150 seems to be very much to the point so as to show that the real question is not whether the respondent No. 2 was actually biased against the remaining candidates but whether there was a reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased, that is to say, whether there was a reasonable likelihood of bias. In the case of (Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow and others)5, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2428 the Supreme Court has again reiterated the view that in deciding the question of bias human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct have to be taken into consideration and each member of the group or Board is bound to influence the others, more so if the member concerned is a person with special knowledge that his bias is likely to operate in a subtle manner. We are thus firm in our mind that although the petitioner might not have been, perhaps, able to establish actual bias against the respondent No. 2, the possibility of bias likely to influence the final outcome of the selection in favour of his son in detriment of more meritorious candidates cannot be just ruled out. 20. Mr. Sonak also relied on the case of (Jaswant Singh Nerwal v. State of Punjab and others)6, 1991 Supp. (1) S.C.C. 313 in which Kraipak's case was sought to be distinguished. This was a matter of appointment and selection by The Public Service Commission wherein the selected candidate's father was a member of the Selection Commission at the interview. The father however did not participate in the deliberations when his son appeared for viva voce test. The Supreme Court held that since no mala fide was shown against the remaining members of the Commission the selection of the candidate was not vitiated by reasonable likelihood of bias. It was not possible for the remaining members of the Commission to oust a possibly successful candidate. From the very enunciation of this ruling itself it seems that the judgment does not cover the facts of our case and was instead delivered on its peculiar facts. In the aforesaid case a competitive examination was held by the Punjab Public Service Commission for recruitment of officers in the Punjab Civil Services. From the very enunciation of this ruling itself it seems that the judgment does not cover the facts of our case and was instead delivered on its peculiar facts. In the aforesaid case a competitive examination was held by the Punjab Public Service Commission for recruitment of officers in the Punjab Civil Services. In the examination, out of a total of 825 marks, 625 marks were allotted for written test and the remaining marks were for viva voca test. These vive voce marks were distributed in various heads and each member individually got 25 marks but on actual working, if one of them was not attending, the share of marks were divided by the members who were present. Further these marks were not strictly divided as 25 marks for each member but each member allotted marks to each candidate out of 125 marks and these when added were divided by 5 or by the actual number of members present and participating in the interview. The viva voca test was thus conducted by the Commission comprising 5 members including the father of the candidate. There were 540 candidates to be interviewed. When the disputed candidate appeared for the interview his father did not participate in the deliberations but in the examination he was declared successful and was appointed to the post in the Punjab Civil Services. The High Court, on being moved under Article 226 by the unsuccessful candidate, quashed his selection and appointment on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice due to the reasonable likelihood of bias. The High Court took the view that, even though the father of the candidate did not participate in the deliberations of the Commission when his son was interviewed, his brooding presence had negatively influenced the selection and the possible ouster of a possibly successful candidate. But the Supreme Court held that there was no material showing that the father of the candidate, being a member of the Public Service Commission, per se had the effect of other members keeping track of comparatives in order to single out his son as a successful candidate. Nor there was anything to show mala fide against the other members of the Commission of having shared the supposed animus of the father. Nor there was anything to show mala fide against the other members of the Commission of having shared the supposed animus of the father. The manner in which the viva voce test was conducted shows that no single member could possibly usurp to himself the total functioning of the Commission and jealous as human nature is no other member could be expected to have abdicated his powers to another. It was on this ground that the Court ruled that the circumstances do not give rise to the likelihood of candidate's father espousing the cause of his son to the other four members of the Commission and monitoring the performance of 540 candidates to be interviewed, the results of written examination of which he was not alleged to be aware before hand. 21. It is therefore clear that the ratio of this judgment cannot at all be extended to a situation in which the respondent No. 2's son was interviewed by a Selection Committee reconstituted immediately prior to the holding of the interview and wherein the respondent No. 2 was functioning as a member in dual capacity both as Principal of the College and Director of Technical Education as well, in the absence of any expert member nominated by the University although he contends that he remained absent when the case of the respondent No. 4 was taken by the Committee. It seems therefore obvious that the composition of such a committee in which the respondent No. 2 was apparently occupying a quite prominent place on account of his high position in the college and also in the field of Technical Education itself cannot be held as offering a sufficient guarantee that the selection of the candidates in which his own son has participated would have been objectively done in strict adherence to the principles of natural justice. 22. It may be recorded also that ostensibly without any locus one Professor Deshmukh whose presence has not been explained by any of the respondents and therefore it is not known in what capacity he took part in the Committee has functioned as its member during the selection of the respondent No. 2's son. 22. It may be recorded also that ostensibly without any locus one Professor Deshmukh whose presence has not been explained by any of the respondents and therefore it is not known in what capacity he took part in the Committee has functioned as its member during the selection of the respondent No. 2's son. The record however shows that Professor Deshmukh happens to be the Professor of the same College in which the respondent No. 2 was the Principal, which implies per se some sort of hierarchial subordination which fact once again appears to invite the mischief of a not properly Constituted Selection Committee as per the Notification dated 9th October, 1993. 23. Further we are greatly disappointed that inspite of the fact that the expert member to be nominated by the University was deleted from the new Committee, even the nominee of the Vice Chancellor from the University as one of its members did not remain present at the time of the interview for the purpose of selection of respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. In the case of (Ayurvidya Prasarak Mandal others v. Geeta Bhaskar Pendse and others)7, 1991(1 C.L.R.) S.C. 820 the Supreme Court has held that selection made by a Committee in which the nominee of the Vice-Chancellor and the expert nominated by the University were not present is legally ineffective although the University by itself accorded approval for appointment. The Court observed that the approval given by the University being in ignorance of the state of affairs and in breach of the Rules could not validate such illegal appointment. 24. Mr. Sonak has again made an attempt to canvass the proposition that since the petitioner knew that the respondent No. 2, as father of one of the candidates, was a member of the Committee the very fact that he voluntarily submitted to the selection and appeared to the interview would mean that he had waived the plea of bias. For that purpose he sought support on Dr. For that purpose he sought support on Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow and others, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2428 wherein the Supreme Court has held that every candidate for selection knowing fully well the relevant facts about the members of the Selection Committee voluntarily appeared for interview without raising any kind of objection against the constitution of the Selection Committee and took a chance of favourable recommendation in his favour, it was not open to him to turn round and question the Constitution of the Committee when the decision was unfavourable to him. The learned Counsel has submitted that the plea of bias should have been raised at the first available opportunity and thus the right to challenge would not be open to the petitioner in the instant case. 25. We are however not inclined to accept this argument bearing in mind that there is nothing on record to suggest, at the very outset, that the petitioner was aware either that the respondent No. 4 was a candidate or that the respondent No. 2 was one of the Committee members in the interview meant to select his own son. Therefore the very question of the petitioner having voluntarily submitted to such a situation so as to hold him as having forfeited the right to challenge such a selection does not seem to arise at all. The learned Counsel's further submission that the petitioner is guilty of laches since the appointment of respondent No. 6 was made in December 1993 and the petition was filed after nearly 7 months does not also in our view carry much weight for the simple reason that there is again no material to show that the petitioner was actually in the knowledge of the respondents' appointments as Lecturers right from December 1993 on permanent and regular basis. 26. Learned Counsel has also invited our attention to three decisions in the case of (State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava)8, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 912, in the case of (State of Bombay v. Dr. N.T. Advani)9, A.I.R. 1963 Bombay 13 and in the case of (A.M. Joseph, Trivandrum and another v. State of Kerala and another)10, A.I.R. 1968 Kerala 244. Learned Counsel has also invited our attention to three decisions in the case of (State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava)8, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 912, in the case of (State of Bombay v. Dr. N.T. Advani)9, A.I.R. 1963 Bombay 13 and in the case of (A.M. Joseph, Trivandrum and another v. State of Kerala and another)10, A.I.R. 1968 Kerala 244. On the question of the effect of non-consultation by the respondent No. 1 with the Commission as provided in Article 320 of the Constitution the first ruling of the Supreme Court has laid down that the requirements of Article 320 are not mandatory and non-compliance of these requirements does not afford a cause of action to a civil servant in a Court of law. Admittedly the judgment was given particularly in the case of Clause (c) of Article 320(3) which deals with disciplinary matters which affects a person serving under the Government of India or a Government of a State in a civil capacity and does not specifically concern situations covered under Clauses (a) and (b) which are the subject matter of this petition. It is true that the other two decisions which have followed the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court have sought to extend the ratio of this ruling to situations coming within the purview of other Clauses, namely, Clauses (a) and (b) on the ground that there was no reason why this should not apply to those cases as well. 27. With respect we are reluctant to accept the view taken by the learned Single Judges of Bombay and Kerala High Courts on the point of applicability of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court to the facts of our case which fall within Clauses (a) and (b) of Article 320(3) having regard to the fact that no cogent reasons appear to have been advanced in those judgments for enlarging the scope of the decision of the Supreme Court which has been delivered in the particular facts of that case and on the aspect of mandatory nature of Clause (c) of Article 320(3) of the Constitution. In our judgment the aforesaid rulings are clearly distinguishable and do not appear to take the respondents' case any further. At this stage the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of J K Public Service Commission, etc. v. Dr. In our judgment the aforesaid rulings are clearly distinguishable and do not appear to take the respondents' case any further. At this stage the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of J K Public Service Commission, etc. v. Dr. Narinder Mohan and others etc., etc., A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1808 appears to be very much relevant. The Supreme Court has made it clear that though it is settled law that consultation is not mandatory but as held by this Court in (Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab)11, 1985(1) S.C.R. 899 the establishment of an independent body like Public Service Commission is to ensure selection of best available persons for appointment to a post to avoid arbitrariness and nepotism in the matter of appointment. It was further observed that the Commission is constituted by persons of high ability, varied experience and of undisputed integrity and further assisted by experts on the subject. Whenever the Government is required to make an appointment to a high public office, it is required to consult the Public Service Commission. The selection by the Commission, however, is only a recommendation of the Commission and the final authority for appointment is the Government but the Government cannot appoint a person whose name does not appear in the list. 28. It thus follows that the entire exercise of interview of the candidates during which the respondents 4 to 6 were selected is to be found irregular, illegal and vitiated. Thus, even assuming that a case of bias on the part of the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner has not been proved, still we are constrained to make some observations on the manner in which this whole exercise appears to have been conducted by the respondents, namely, the respondent No. 2 in order to keep out meritorious candidates which might have competed for the posts to which the respondents 4 to 6 were appointed on regular basis. 29. In this regard first of all we are bound to take note of the fact that admittedly the advertisement inviting candidates to fill the posts was published by the respondent No. 2 in a national newspaper only and no such publication appeared in any of the local newspapers. 29. In this regard first of all we are bound to take note of the fact that admittedly the advertisement inviting candidates to fill the posts was published by the respondent No. 2 in a national newspaper only and no such publication appeared in any of the local newspapers. This circumstance by itself raises a serious doubt on the intention on the part of the said respondent in avoiding effective publicity with regard to the filling of such posts in the very State wherein the posts were supposed to be filled. Further the documentary evidence made available by the respondent No. 3, namely, the correspondence, exchanged by the Commission with the respondent No. 1 discloses that after several representations made to the Government in respect of the Exemption from Consultation Notification the decision given by the Cabinet to revert the teaching posts on 18th November, 1993 and which was published in the local newspaper was sought to be kept in cold storage and circumvented by the concerned department by withholding the publication of the respective Notification till 13th January, 1994 so as to enable the making of appointments to teaching posts in the Goa College of Engineering and Government Polytechnic without effective consultation with the Commission. There is more and this is that, inspite of the fact that consequent upon a strong complaint made by the Commission that the Cabinet decision was being purposely ignored by the department on account of the delay in publishing the Notification and the said Notification came to be published on 13th January, 1994, the respondent No. 1 purported to amend the 1987 Rules and in no time published the Notification dated 27th January, 1994 also without prior consultation with the Commission and making the condition of consultation as non-applicable. 30. It seems clear in the circumstances that this appears to have been done so as to enable the department to finalize the appointments of the respondents 4, 5 and 6 as well of the remaining candidates who were selected in the interview held on 3rd, 4th and 5th November to the detriment of a great number of appointees holding ad-hoc appointments of Lecturers and make these last appointments on regular basis without regularizing the appointments of those appointed earlier. In this regard we find from the record that the Commission brought to the notice of the respondent No. 1 that on account of the inordinate delay in issuing the respective Notification about the exclusion of the Exemption Clause, several appointments of the teaching staff were being done in the Engineering College and Government Polytechnic without consulting the Commission and that the Education Department was attempting to perpetuate these illegal appointments involving 11 candidates already selected by making the Government agree to operate the waiting list in the panel of November 1993 till it was exhausted as the consultation with the Commission was not found necessary. The respondent No. 1 was also made aware by the Commission that fresh orders of appointments were being issued on regular basis when there were at the relevant time at least 27 members among the teaching staff of the Engineering College still working on ad-hoc basis some of them for more than 10 years and thus there was no reason for the Education Department to act in such a haste by illegally recruiting candidates for the posts on regular basis which fact appeared to justify the comments made in the press that among the candidates freshly appointed there were close relatives or candidates having close connections with the members of the Selection Committee. 31. It thus follows that for the reasons mentioned the entire process of selection has to be held as null and vitiated and therefore the appointments of the respondents 4, 5 and 6 cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. Mr. Sonak's grievance that the respondent No. 6 is very much qualified for the post of Lecturer not only according to the new Recruitment Rules but also under the essential qualifications prescribed by the 1987 Rules and therefore his appointment should not be disturbed cannot thus be considered bearing in mind that the selection itself is to be deemed as having been done in breach of the relevant rules by an incompetent Selection Committee and without prior consultation with the Commission. 32. In the result we allow this petition. The appointments of respondents 4, 5 and 6 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 1 is directed to send a requisition to the Goa Public Service Commission to advertise the post and fill the same according to law. Mr. 32. In the result we allow this petition. The appointments of respondents 4, 5 and 6 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 1 is directed to send a requisition to the Goa Public Service Commission to advertise the post and fill the same according to law. Mr. Lawande the learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that in case the Court was inclined to allow the petition the appointments of the respondents 4, 5 and 6 should not be disturbed till the end of this academic year in order not to create a void or gap in the teaching posts. We find this prayer quite reasonable and therefore allow the respondents 4, 5 and 6 to continue in their posts till 30th April, 1995 on which date their appointments will cease to operate. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms with costs. Petition allowed. *****